News:

Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!We hope you had a blessed Pascha and Bright Week. The OCNet Forum is operating in “Beta Mode” due to a major systems upgrade. A maintenance window is currently in effect and users should expect downtime starting at 0300 EDT on Friday the 24th of May.

Ever have those religious pet peeves that really are not that big but just seriously annoy you? This is one of those things that annoy me. When Protestants say that they are 'just Christian' or 'non-denominational'. When I hear someone say 'I am non-denominational' I usually retort with the question 'So you are Orthodox?' and they stare at me in confusion. Non-denominationalism is in itself a denomination because denomination implies change, and the 'non-denominational' Churches are a change from the original Church, which is the Eastern Orthodox Church. The only non-denominational Church is the Eastern Orthodox Church; everything else was born from schism and is thus a denomination, including the modern 'non-denominational' Churches that function differently than the original Orthodox Church does.

The only Churches that can even claim non-denominationalism or being 'just Christians' are the Eastern Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox Churches and Roman Catholic Churches. And even then, that is a debate that only us three can have. The modern 'non-denominationals' have really no say or authority in this debate.

'Non-Denominationalism' is perhaps the most dangerous out of all forms of Protestantism because they have absolutely no doctrinal clarity or authority. Even Evangelicals have some guidelines and authority. But not 'Non-Denominationals'. You can have people with all sorts of bizarre beliefs in a 'Non-Denominational' Church and there is no authority in which to refute them by. I've met 'Non-Denominationals' who even rejected the Trinity and others who did accept it. How can you have differences this big and really consider yourselves all 'non-denominational'? Surely some clarification is needed.

Well, it seems that most people that tell me they are Non-Denominational say it to get across the message they are in an elite category of Christians. However, it often is the case they don't know anything about theology or history. It's just a feel-good term for those that often are led into the same heresies the Church Fathers had to deal with in the beginning of Christianity.

Ever have those religious pet peeves that really are not that big but just seriously annoy you? This is one of those things that annoy me. When Protestants say that they are 'just Christian' or 'non-denominational'. When I hear someone say 'I am non-denominational' I usually retort with the question 'So you are Orthodox?' and they stare at me in confusion. Non-denominationalism is in itself a denomination because denomination implies change, and the 'non-denominational' Churches are a change from the original Church, which is the Eastern Orthodox Church. The only non-denominational Church is the Eastern Orthodox Church; everything else was born from schism and is thus a denomination, including the modern 'non-denominational' Churches that function differently than the original Orthodox Church does.

The only Churches that can even claim non-denominationalism or being 'just Christians' are the Eastern Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox Churches and Roman Catholic Churches. And even then, that is a debate that only us three can have. The modern 'non-denominationals' have really no say or authority in this debate.

'Non-Denominationalism' is perhaps the most dangerous out of all forms of Protestantism because they have absolutely no doctrinal clarity or authority. Even Evangelicals have some guidelines and authority. But not 'Non-Denominationals'. You can have people with all sorts of bizarre beliefs in a 'Non-Denominational' Church and there is no authority in which to refute them by. I've met 'Non-Denominationals' who even rejected the Trinity and others who did accept it. How can you have differences this big and really consider yourselves all 'non-denominational'? Surely some clarification is needed.

"Denomination" simply means "name", so I suppose that, since we call ourselves "Orthodox", we can be considered a denomination.

In addition to what has been written keep in mind there are some 'Non Denominational' Churches that are founded (have separated actually) because the Denominational Church (they once belonged) has wondered so far from the original doctrine they were founded upon.

Of course that creates an 'Independent Non Denominational' Church that could be a different topic post within itself!

Logged

There are heathens that live with more virtue than I. The devil himself believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Neither of these things truly makes me Christian.

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Meh,

From my experience, its often just folks trying to cling to faith rather than politics. ALL churches (our own included) have a lot of political baggage attached, and many folks from the "non-denominational" movements are just trying to get away and detached from all that. Of course, they become inherently politicized when they form or join a non-denominational church out of political protest, because one way or the other politics influenced the decision.

I find these folks are trying their best to avoid that anti-Catholic and fundamentalist sectarianism which is coming to dominate American Christianity. Then again, as these non-denoms evolve into mega churches, they become another problem entirely

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

"Emergent" refers to intra-Christian syncretic evangelicals who utilize American "indie" or "hipster" methodology to form their ecclesiology, theology and praxis.

"Ecumenical" (when referring to a denomination or local church) refers to intra-Christian syncretic, high church vagante groups which may be loosely affiliated with Anglicanism, the ELCA and/or Roman Catholicism; possible syncretism with religions outside of the Christian sphere.

"Just Christian": Multiple definitions--- 1. A low church evangelical who functionally accepts only their own original 'conversion experience' understanding of Evangelicalism; 2. A convert to Christianity with no tradition other than the 'conversion experience' tradition (e.g. they were converted by an evangelical or a bible, but do not attend a church); 3. A disillusioned former member of a Christian tradition, usually Evangelical or Roman Catholic; 4. See "non-denominational".

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

"Emergent" refers to intra-Christian syncretic evangelicals who utilize American "indie" or "hipster" methodology to form their ecclesiology, theology and praxis.

"Ecumenical" (when referring to a denomination or local church) refers to intra-Christian syncretic, high church vagante groups which may be loosely affiliated with Anglicanism, the ELCA and/or Roman Catholicism; possible syncretism with religions outside of the Christian sphere.

Excellent!

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

House Churches have a longer history in American Christianity than evangelical youth bible studies. They have been here since the 18th century, and are often the result of either (a) a congregation either voluntarily leaving or being forced out of one of the more established Protestant/Baptist organizations or (b) rural churches with membership too small or poor to afford a building, hence the perpetual "building funds" of these groups. If there is a resurgence of house churches in the young evangelical movements, that would be news to me, but evangelicals usually deride or dismiss house churches as creepy imitations.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

If there is a resurgence of house churches in the young evangelical movements, that would be news to me, but evangelicals usually deride or dismiss house churches as creepy imitations.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Habte, I should have specified the house churches of today, within the Evangelical or Post-Evangelical traditions. They're huge in my area.

Logged

Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Ever have those religious pet peeves that really are not that big but just seriously annoy you? This is one of those things that annoy me. When Protestants say that they are 'just Christian' or 'non-denominational'. When I hear someone say 'I am non-denominational' I usually retort with the question 'So you are Orthodox?' and they stare at me in confusion. Non-denominationalism is in itself a denomination because denomination implies change, and the 'non-denominational' Churches are a change from the original Church, which is the Eastern Orthodox Church. The only non-denominational Church is the Eastern Orthodox Church; everything else was born from schism and is thus a denomination, including the modern 'non-denominational' Churches that function differently than the original Orthodox Church does.

The only Churches that can even claim non-denominationalism or being 'just Christians' are the Eastern Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox Churches and Roman Catholic Churches. And even then, that is a debate that only us three can have. The modern 'non-denominationals' have really no say or authority in this debate.

'Non-Denominationalism' is perhaps the most dangerous out of all forms of Protestantism because they have absolutely no doctrinal clarity or authority. Even Evangelicals have some guidelines and authority. But not 'Non-Denominationals'. You can have people with all sorts of bizarre beliefs in a 'Non-Denominational' Church and there is no authority in which to refute them by. I've met 'Non-Denominationals' who even rejected the Trinity and others who did accept it. How can you have differences this big and really consider yourselves all 'non-denominational'? Surely some clarification is needed.

"Denomination" simply means "name", so I suppose that, since we call ourselves "Orthodox", we can be considered a denomination.

"Emergent" refers to intra-Christian syncretic evangelicals who utilize American "indie" or "hipster" methodology to form their ecclesiology, theology and praxis.

"Ecumenical" (when referring to a denomination or local church) refers to intra-Christian syncretic, high church vagante groups which may be loosely affiliated with Anglicanism, the ELCA and/or Roman Catholicism; possible syncretism with religions outside of the Christian sphere.

"Just Christian": Multiple definitions--- 1. A low church evangelical who functionally accepts only their own original 'conversion experience' understanding of Evangelicalism; 2. A convert to Christianity with no tradition other than the 'conversion experience' tradition (e.g. they were converted by an evangelical or a bible, but do not attend a church); 3. A disillusioned former member of a Christian tradition, usually Evangelical or Roman Catholic; 4. See "non-denominational".

"Emergent" refers to intra-Christian syncretic evangelicals who utilize American "indie" or "hipster" methodology to form their ecclesiology, theology and praxis.

"Ecumenical" (when referring to a denomination or local church) refers to intra-Christian syncretic, high church vagante groups which may be loosely affiliated with Anglicanism, the ELCA and/or Roman Catholicism; possible syncretism with religions outside of the Christian sphere.

"Just Christian": Multiple definitions--- 1. A low church evangelical who functionally accepts only their own original 'conversion experience' understanding of Evangelicalism; 2. A convert to Christianity with no tradition other than the 'conversion experience' tradition (e.g. they were converted by an evangelical or a bible, but do not attend a church); 3. A disillusioned former member of a Christian tradition, usually Evangelical or Roman Catholic; 4. See "non-denominational".

I'd like to add that a distinction can be made between saying "non-denominational" and "Non-denominational". (Similar to how saying "eastern Christian" isn't exactly the same as saying "Eastern Christian".)

I'd say it's been one (or a group of them) for a while, it's just catching on in recent decades. The Protestant group I was a part of, which was started in the late 19th century, insisted that they were not Protestant and not a denomination for their entire history. If pressed they would only say that they were a "movement". What are you going to do though?

"Emergent" refers to intra-Christian syncretic evangelicals who utilize American "indie" or "hipster" methodology to form their ecclesiology, theology and praxis.

"Ecumenical" (when referring to a denomination or local church) refers to intra-Christian syncretic, high church vagante groups which may be loosely affiliated with Anglicanism, the ELCA and/or Roman Catholicism; possible syncretism with religions outside of the Christian sphere.

"Just Christian": Multiple definitions--- 1. A low church evangelical who functionally accepts only their own original 'conversion experience' understanding of Evangelicalism; 2. A convert to Christianity with no tradition other than the 'conversion experience' tradition (e.g. they were converted by an evangelical or a bible, but do not attend a church); 3. A disillusioned former member of a Christian tradition, usually Evangelical or Roman Catholic; 4. See "non-denominational".

That first one is really not accurate, in many cases. I've been a regular attender at three different non-denominational churches, the only one that could possibly fit that description is the mega church I attended for a while (and I'm not really sure it's accurate even then). The other two were more or less Baptist churches that were unaffiliated with any organization.

A non-denominational church isn't a denomination in itself, just an autonomous evangelical church that doesn't report to any higher human authority. Not all non-denominational churches shun official doctrinal statements. "Non-denominationalism" isn't a faith in itself, it's just a word that describes the way certain churches operate, their "polity" if you will. Think of it as Congregationalism within an evangelical context. That being said, almost all churches that claim to be "non-denominational" adhere to Evangelicalism.

A non-denominational church isn't a denomination in itself, just an autonomous evangelical church that doesn't report to any higher human authority. Not all non-denominational churches shun official doctrinal statements. "Non-denominationalism" isn't a faith in itself, it's just a word that describes the way certain churches operate, their "polity" if you will. Think of it as Congregationalism within an evangelical context. That being said, almost all churches that claim to be "non-denominational" adhere to Evangelicalism.

We Orthodox don't submit to higher authority; Christ is our head and our Lord.

Evangelicalism submits to whose theology is in style a the time. If that's not submission to human authority, I don't know what is.

A non-denominational church isn't a denomination in itself, just an autonomous evangelical church that doesn't report to any higher human authority. Not all non-denominational churches shun official doctrinal statements. "Non-denominationalism" isn't a faith in itself, it's just a word that describes the way certain churches operate, their "polity" if you will. Think of it as Congregationalism within an evangelical context. That being said, almost all churches that claim to be "non-denominational" adhere to Evangelicalism.

We Orthodox don't submit to higher authority; Christ is our head and our Lord.

Evangelicalism submits to whose theology is in style a the time. If that's not submission to human authority, I don't know what is.

I've been both an Evangelical and Orthodox long enough to know that what you say just isn't true. Both the Evangelicals and the Orthodox submit to their favorite theologians. It's just that we Orthodox are willing to admit that by calling our great theologians Fathers.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of people that I have met who have preferred to think of themselves as "non-denominational" have had what appeared to be pretty benign reasons for doing so. Most people just don't want their walk with God to be limited to the constraints of a particular formal group, and they don't want their relationship with God to be defined in terms of a particular group.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of people that I have met who have preferred to think of themselves as "non-denominational" have had what appeared to be pretty benign reasons for doing so. Most people just don't want their walk with God to be limited to the constraints of a particular formal group, and they don't want their relationship with God to be defined in terms of a particular group.

I can understand that, yet more often than not, their beliefs fall within what a group believes, but want the no label stuff. I just say that a spade is a spade, even if it thinks of itself as, and wants to be called, a plastic hair brush.

Quote

Evangelicalism submits to whose theology is in style a the time

I would not say that Evangelicals are such slaves to fashion. I do however, find them (as I myself did at one time) FAR too suceptible (sp?) to the "new interpretations" and "new idea" way too often. Look no further than the "emergents".

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

It has occurred to me that there's also that very common brand of Evangelical Protestants who hold no denominational loyalty and simply wander about from church to church seeking something "new and fresh". There are many of those here in my city. I'm sure most of them would identify themselves as "just Christian" rather than Baptist, Presbyterian, Nazarene, whatever.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of people that I have met who have preferred to think of themselves as "non-denominational" have had what appeared to be pretty benign reasons for doing so. Most people just don't want their walk with God to be limited to the constraints of a particular formal group, and they don't want their relationship with God to be defined in terms of a particular group.

Well, sure. Because that way they get to do whatever they want without any of the hard boring stuff.I prefer to think of myself as a dead ringer for Angelina Jolie, too, but that don't mean I'm going to come home and find Brad Pitt sitting in front of the tv.

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

It has occurred to me that there's also that very common brand of Evangelical Protestants who hold no denominational loyalty and simply wander about from church to church seeking something "new and fresh". There are many of those here in my city. I'm sure most of them would identify themselves as "just Christian" rather than Baptist, Presbyterian, Nazarene, whatever.

Most of the folks I have known who did that weren't really seeking something "new and fresh" as much as "finally, I feel comfortable."

Myself included.

Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

The overwhelmingly vast majority of people that I have met who have preferred to think of themselves as "non-denominational" have had what appeared to be pretty benign reasons for doing so. Most people just don't want their walk with God to be limited to the constraints of a particular formal group, and they don't want their relationship with God to be defined in terms of a particular group.

Well, sure. Because that way they get to do whatever they want without any of the hard boring stuff.I prefer to think of myself as a dead ringer for Angelina Jolie, too, but that don't mean I'm going to come home and find Brad Pitt sitting in front of the tv.

Looking back, that was probably true for myself and many of my friends. But that was what we knew and had nothing else to compare it to.

I think 'non-denominational' is a statement of intent. I currently attend a church that used to describe itself as non-denominational (before they decided the leaders were not accountable enough to any outside authority and technically joined 2 denominations). Many of the members were former Anglicans / Baptists / Brethren / Methodists etc. What they mean is that they are intentionally setting aside the differences between these denominations and aspiring to 'core' Christian faith.

In actual fact, most 'non-denominational' Christians have little concept of Church history or theology. They make the evangelical assumption that you can basically read the faith straight off the pages of scripture. They assume that anything that isn't directly from Scripture is 'human tradition'.

Generally they're usually very sincere and faithful. Any discussion on what constitutes heresy won't be very productive though.